Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicants initially filed application dated 10/10/2025, claim 1 has been amended, and claims 2-20 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection has been considered, however are not found to be persuasive. Applicant argues that claims to not recite an abstract idea nor are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The Examiner disagrees and asserts that the claims are directed towards certain methods of human activity and other than reciting “mixing machine” and the newly added “hardware device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. In plain English, a human, receives selection of a recipe, looks up how much to pay the owner of the recipe, configures a mixing machine (putting in ingredients, set timer, speed etc), turns on mixing machine to make beverage, dispenses the beverage for the consumer. But for the recitation of a mixing machine and a hardware device, both recited at recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 103 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method for producing a beverage comprising: obtaining a selection of a recipe from a user; determining, using at least one hardware device, compensation due to a rights- holder of the recipe based on a use of the recipe; configuring a mixing machine based on the recipe; producing, using the mixing machine, the beverage based on the recipe; and dispensing, using the mixing machine, the beverage.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “mixing machine, and hardware device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “mixing machine and hardware device” the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 2 additional elements – mixing machine and hardware device. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of mixing machine and hardware device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the mixing machine or hardware device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-13, 19, and 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0263411 A1 to Quartarone (“Quartarone”), in view of United States Patent No. 11,192,772 B1 DeRaedt.
In regards to claim 1, Quartarone discloses the following limitations:
A method for producing a beverage comprising: obtaining a selection of a recipe from a user; (Quartarone discloses a beverage machine that includes receiving selection of a recipe from a user, mixing, and dispensing the beverage based on the recipe selection. See at least Abstract, Figures 2-3, and ¶¶ 0018, and 0022-0030)
Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
determining, using at least on hardware device, compensation due to a rights-holder of the recipe based on a use of the recipe
The Examiner provides DeRaedt to teach the following limitations:
determining, using at least on hardware device, compensation due to a rights-holder of the recipe based on a use of the recipe (see at least DeRaedt Abstract, Figure 1, 4, 6, and 7, and ¶¶ 118, 171)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of DeRaedt in order to facilitate payment for the dispensed beverage and provide recognition to recipe creators (DeRaedt ¶ 4), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claims 6-8, Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising enabling a specification of one or more ingredients to add to the recipe for a particular instance of the production of the beverage. further comprising enabling a specification of one or more ingredients to exclude from the recipe for a particular instance of the production of the beverage. further comprising enabling a specification of one or more process changes to the recipe for a particular instance of the production of the beverage.
The Examiner provides DeRaedt to teach the following limitations:
further comprising enabling a specification of one or more ingredients to add to the recipe for a particular instance of the production of the beverage. further comprising enabling a specification of one or more ingredients to exclude from the recipe for a particular instance of the production of the beverage. further comprising enabling a specification of one or more process changes to the recipe for a particular instance of the production of the beverage. (DeRaedt teaches a system and method of recipe creation by which users can modify the ingredients, sequence, and timing of the recipe and further recalculating the price of the beverage based on the changes. See at least Figure 7)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of DeRaedt since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claim 11, Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the compensation is made in response to a submission of the recipe.
The Examiner provides DeRaedt to teach the following limitations:
wherein the compensation is made in response to a submission of the recipe. (see at least DeRaedt Figure 7 (S706-S712))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of DeRaedt since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claims 12-13, Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the compensation is made in response to obtaining permission to use the recipe. wherein the compensation is made in response to the producing the beverage step based on the recipe.
The Examiner provides DeRaedt to teach the following limitations:
wherein the compensation is made in response to obtaining permission to use the recipe. wherein the compensation is made in response to the producing the beverage step based on the recipe. (see at least Figures 7-9 and ¶¶ 118-120)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of DeRaedt since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claims 2-5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0263411 A1 to Quartarone (“Quartarone”), in view of United States Patent No. 11,192,772 B1 DeRaedt, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0168651 A1 to Yue (“Yue”)
In regards to claims 2-5, Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising maintaining a confidentiality of the recipe between a submission of the recipe and the production of the beverage. wherein the maintaining the confidentiality comprises encrypting the recipe. further comprising decrypting the recipe using hardware- based mechanisms. wherein unencrypted versions of the recipe are only accessible by electronics of a given beverage mixing machine.
The Examiner provides Yue to teach the following limitations:
further comprising maintaining a confidentiality of the recipe between a submission of the recipe and the production of the beverage. wherein the maintaining the confidentiality comprises encrypting the recipe. further comprising decrypting the recipe using hardware- based mechanisms. wherein unencrypted versions of the recipe are only accessible by electronics of a given beverage mixing machine. (Yue teaches a system and method of sharing recipes between a consumer and a recipe creator where the security of the recipe is maintained via encrypting and decrypting the recipe and handling of the recipe by the end machine. See at least Abstract, and ¶ 0803)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of Yue in order to improve recipe data security protection (¶ 0803) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claims 9-10, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0263411 A1 to Quartarone (“Quartarone”), in view of United States Patent No. 11,192,772 B1 DeRaedt, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0289776 A1 to Kannaiyan (“Kannaiyan”)
In regards to claims 9-10, Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising submitting the recipe by incorporating the recipe into a blockchain. wherein the determining the compensation is based on a blockchain that comprises compensation information.
The Examiner provides Kannaiyan to teach the following limitations:
further comprising submitting the recipe by incorporating the recipe into a blockchain. wherein the determining the compensation is based on a blockchain that comprises compensation information. (see at least Kannaiyan Figure 13 and ¶¶ 0131-0132)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of Kannaiyan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claims 14-18, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0263411 A1 to Quartarone (“Quartarone”), in view of United States Patent No. 11,192,772 B1 DeRaedt, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0289776 A1 to Kannaiyan (“Kannaiyan”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 14-18, Quartarone does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising applying credit for the compensation by adding a block to a blockchain associated with the recipe. further comprising adding a compensation block to a blockchain to identify one or more servings of the recipe that are eligible for compensation. wherein the adding of the compensation block is performed for one or more of: when the beverage is purchased, when the beverage is produced, and when the beverage is delivered. further comprising maintaining a blockchain for each recipe.
further comprising maintaining a blockchain for each combination of recipe and mixing machine.
The Examiner provides Kannaiyan to teach the following limitations:
further comprising applying credit for the compensation by adding a block to a blockchain associated with the recipe. further comprising adding a compensation block to a blockchain to identify one or more servings of the recipe that are eligible for compensation. wherein the adding of the compensation block is performed for one or more of: when the beverage is purchased, when the beverage is produced, and when the beverage is delivered. further comprising maintaining a blockchain for each recipe.
further comprising maintaining a blockchain for each combination of recipe and mixing machine. (see at least Kannaiyan Figure 14 and ¶ 0132)
Further, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to use a blockchain to track and trace transactions and maintaining individual chains for specific items etc. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Quartarone the teachings of Kannaiyan and Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627